As the great voting rights advocate, Rush Limbaugh, trumpeted at the beginning of his radio show this morning, today's 6 to 3 Supreme Court ruling allowing new, modern restrictions regarding which citizens may or may not cast votes at American polling places on Election Day, is "a huge, huge, huge move forward to undercut Democrat efforts to commit voter fraud this fall."

Fortunately, instead of coming in June as expected, this decision on an Indiana Photo ID restriction case comes just in time to prevent massive voter fraud at the polls in Indiana's Democratic Primary two weeks from now, when millions of fraudulent Democratic voters were almost certainly plotting to try and show up to vote on electronic voting systems on which it's impossible to prove one way or another whether they did or didn't vote the way the machines will tell us they did. With voting systems like those in use across the Hoosier State, and elsewhere around the country, it's all the more reason to ensure those Democrats can't show up and commit the fraud they were probably planning to engage in on May 6th!

The news is certainly the most important SCOTUS decision pertaining to elections since the triumphant, well-considered, and much-beloved Bush v. Gore decision of 2000. Today's verdict will undoubtedly be heralded and taught at American institutions of learning for decades to come, with the same reverence as that dedicated to landmark Supreme Court decisions like 1857's Dredd Scott v. Sandford ruling, which thankfully found that "people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants --- whether or not they were slaves --- could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories."

The Supremes have done it again! But no such important American political battle like that which was won today is ever fought alone. Due thanks must go to the long-fought efforts of countable simple citizens around our nation, concerned about the integrity of voting. We'd be remiss without noting some of the selfless freedom fighters who helped make today's great news a reality: Courageous, unheralded voices, such as those of "longtime advocate of voter rights" and Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. General Counsel Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, tireless Republican "voter fraud" information-wareness man John Fund, and Bush-appointed DoJ Civil Rights Division guardians of the ballot box, like Hans von Spakovsky, Bradley Schlozman and its former Voting Section chief, John "Minorities Die First" Tanner.

Thanks to brave men like them, and Mr. Limbaugh, of course, it'll be a new day at the polling place this fall! One in which, if Republicans legislators around the country hurry up and get on the anti-voter fraud ball, they can assure that millions of Democratic-leaning citizens won't be fraudulently mistaken for actual voters when they show up at their polling places this November.

But are restrictions that may keep just blacks and the elderly from casting a ballot enough to ensure the true integrity of our vote? Shouldn't we keep fighting to ensure that legitimate voters like you and me don't have our voices diluted by even more fraudulent groups out there, like gays, communists, and dead people, who every year change the results of election after election through their insidious anti-American efforts, because I say they do?

Read on for a couple of new ideas. Clearly, today's SCOTUS decision is a good start, but it hardly goes far enough to ensure that the right American voices are heard, as our founders intended! 14th Amendment, equal protection, blah, blah, blah, my ass!...

"Anti-voter fraud efforts this fall will be easier," concerned voting integrity activist, Limbaugh said while sharing today's great news with his millions of listeners over the publicly-owned airwaves this morning, as he helpfully enlightened them on how "the Democrats shut down the FEC, largely to get away with more voter fraud."

The Supreme Court, of course, agrees. Writing for one group of justices in the majority, Justice Stevens argued [PDF] that "in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud."

I'll say! That is definitely "the first"! Those naysayers, such as the vote-huggers of the DoJ and at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), who say such fraud doesn't actually occur to any noticeable extent, much less one which could change the result of an election, are just plain wrong. Even though that opinion seems to be shared with the proponents of Photo ID restriction laws who have been unable to present any substantive evidence to support their case, beyond the fear that concerns about the possibility of such fraud among the electorate is reason enough to impose such restrictions.

Sure, the dissenting SCOTUS opinion points out "the fact that the State has not come across a single instance of in-person voter impersonation fraud in all of Indiana’s history," but that sort of reasoning only matters if you pay attention to it, and I see no reason to do so.

So the DoJ and EAC, and all the other kinda-gay Constitution Lovers, can take their Marxist facts, terrorist-loving sciences, and troop-hating evidence and stick it where the sun don't shine (e.g., inside a computerized voting machine which counts votes secretly, in such a way that just one person could easily change the results of an entire election without detection).

Lest you get the idea that only Democratic-leaning minorities such as Dredd Scott decision-skirting African-Americans are working to defraud the system, the court went on to explain that the easy ride for Democratic-leaning senior citizen criminals is also to be a thing of the past.

"The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate," they wrote, "is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerks office."

Hear that you elderly shut-ins, lucky enough to get a ride to the polling place on Election Day? You can just get back in your car, drive down to the circuit court clerk's office over in the county seat, and sign an affidavit almost anytime in the days following an election, in order to prove that you are really you! It's easy to ensure your vote gets counted, you slackers!

"Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient," the Supremes found.

Sorry, you well-moneyed forces of Big Democracy! In case you missed it, that's "nationwide," baby! Thor Hearne and his folks are just getting started with their modernization [PDF] of those antiquated and inefficient election procedures, as suggested by that tired old U.S. Constitution, decades of history, and other related, yet quaint and antiquated "laws" and such.

Don't you Democrats understand the Constitution is a living document, meant to be interpreted liberally?! 14th Amendment, 14th Shmamendment!

"Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters right to vote," the wizened Supremes found.

No, it doesn't. And by "most voters," obviously they mean any number of the 10 to 30 million American citizens ("roughly 6–10% of voting-age Americans," as that loser Justice Souter whined in his dissent) who have gotten away with voting without having a state-issued drivers license or photo ID for far too long!

Most voters! Get that, fraudsters? Most voters will have no problem with this restriction. So why should we worry about a few million folks like you who do? It's the big numbers that count, not the small ones. Besides, had just 538 more of you been allowed to vote successfully in Florida in 2000 --- and had officials there wasted their time in counting those votes --- we'd likely have never had such an important Supreme Court decision in the first place!

So stop your whining, sore losers, because most of us don't care to hear it! And it's not as if the Constitution was instituted to protect the interests of the minority over the ruling majority! If you spent more time going to college and getting an education, and less time living off the government dole, you'd probably know that by now.

Yeah, I know...While there may be little --- okay, no actual evidence that Photo ID laws, like the one affirmed for Indiana, would have stopped any particular polling place fraud any time in Indiana history, much less have changed the results of any known election. I also am well aware that mountains of actual scientific evidence, from severalstates and academic studies from across the nation, have shown that a single person, with inappropriate access to a single electronic voting machine, could flip an entire election with little probability of detection --- whether he or she has a state-issued Photo ID or not.

But fortunately, no similar cases to adjudicate whether banning such e-voting systems would similarly "reduce risk of fraud" are before the court, thanks to Democrats, and Democratic public advocacy groups across the country like People for the American Way (PFAW) and Common Cause, who have gone out of their way to assure the continued use of such voting machines, and to assure all of us that they are perfectly safe to use. Such groups have long argued, with no actual evidence to prove it, that such voting machines actually help to enfranchise minority voters, despite a similar lack of evidence showing that any such voting system has ever actually recorded a voter's choice for a candidate or initiative on the ballot during any actual election, accurately, as per their intent

But all of that is likely because those groups just hope to use such voting machines to commit election fraud, now that their voter fraud days are coming to a an end.

The lack of appreciation for that fact, and lack of lawsuits brought to stop their use in American elections, is also, no doubt, seen as a "huge, huge, huge, move forward" for great civil rights advocates such as Rush Limbaugh.

When it comes to polling place ID requirements, however, why stop at today's decision? I've got a few ideas that democracy's Republican heroes who have gotten us this far may want to implement and test at the friendly Supreme Court, to really shut the ballot box door, once and for all, on those who would undermine our precious democracy.

If we hope to ensure that only the right people vote, and not the wrong, fraudulent Americans, it's time to put our laws where our mouths are! Here are a few ideas...

Voters must vote with spouses, to prove they're not gay. Copy of marriage license may be shown in lieu of actual spouse, for voters 60 or younger. Divorce will not be a deterrent to voting, unless said divorces were undertaken under CA or NV law (or from other states to be determined later...maybe at the polling the place...on Election Day.)

Voters must name five Fox News anchors to prove they're not illegal immigrants. Only Americans would watch Fox News. And no, just saying the words "Lou Dobbs" won't do.

Voters must present current bank statement, showing $10,000 or more in savings account, in order to prove voter is not dead. This one is just common sense.

Since dead voters may be mistaken for old people, voters must prove they are alive by performing 10 push-ups before voting. This can hardly be seen as onerous, especially since strength is needed to properly fill in the oval and/or push the touch-screen to make voter selections on the "ballot".

Caveat: The above suggestions are only necessary at the polling place, just like the Photo ID restrictions, since we all know that absentee voter fraud is not a problem at all, and easily defeated by existing...well, it's not a problem at all. And besides, it's often overwhelmingly Republicans and overseas military members who vote that way, and you don't hate the troops, do you?!

Thank God my dear departed Grandmother isn't here to see this...She was born on the back porch of their tenement to Norwegian immigrants prematurely and her bed was a shoe box until she got big enough to sleep in a larger box...never had a license, ID or birth cert. With this law she would never be able to vote again.

The SCOTUS is another broken branch of our Government...old, tired and idiotic. 'Proof of Hardship' should NEVER even been a consideration in this case.

This ruling is even more up there with the ruling in 1886 that deemed the corporation a person, with the same rights but without the liabilities. In fact it is directly related now that the corporations control the government. It's been downhill for over a hundred years...

The popular vote doesn't count for presidential office anyway....they got the masses blocked from their choice with the electoral college....as for ur rant? Here's a quarter....go call someone who cares....that is if you can find a phone booth these days.....

Are you kidding? Democrats have owned Chicago and Cook County for decades. Why would they investigate voter fraud when it would keep them out of office?

So I ask you the same thing I asked democracy-hater Alz: How does the law affirmed by today's ruling, even if enacted in Chicago, have anything to do with keeping the "Democratic Machine" from manufacturing votes in Chicago??

As the great voting rights advocate, Rush Limbaugh, trumpeted at the beginning of his radio show this morning, today's 6 to 3 Supreme Court ruling allowing new, modern restrictions regarding which citizens may or may not cast a vote at an American polling place on Election Day, is "a huge, huge, huge move forward to undercut Democrat efforts to commit voter fraud this fall."

I find it quite interesting how RepubLIEcans like OxyContinRush (how do you think he got the name Rush?) and John Neocon McFlipFlopper always purport to know so well the criminal behavior of middle class Americans and our enemies. How do they know on which streets Al Qaeda dances, how to please Hamas, and how to commit fraud in elections? RepubLIEcans seem to be awfully cozy with the criminal and terrorist mind to have such an intimate knowledge of their whereabouts and activities.

Maybe John Conyers should call Rush as a witness before the Judiciary Committee so that he may share the proof of his claims that he spews daily to millions of listeners over the re-public airwaves.

Two thoughts. 1.) The Nancy Pelosi Swamp Water Reserve is Serving the filtering section of the output of the George W Bush Sewage Treatment Plant very well. 2.) Why is a self admitted domestic terrorist Rush Limbaugh still broadcasting on public airwaves on commercially allocated frequencies? Am I the only one that wrote the FCC?

So I ask you the same thing I asked democracy-hater Alz: How does the law affirmed by today's ruling, even if enacted in Chicago, have anything to do with keeping the "Democratic Machine" from manufacturing votes in Chicago??

I guess, like he/she, you can't answer the question either.

It doesn't do anything for Illinois at this time since Illinois doesn't have a voter ID law, and the Court didn't mandate that one is needed. What they did do was affirm the law in Indiana.

What it does mean for Illinois is that if a law like the one in Indiana were passed, it would deny the use of the Democratic Machine to include votes by people who are passing themselves off as someone they are not, perhaps a resident of Mount Carmel Cemetery (or residents of any of the other cemeteries within Chicago, core constituencies of the Chicago Democratic Machine).

It also means that if a similar law were passed in Illinois, it already has passed constitutional muster against ridiculous challenges like the one in Indiana.

By the way, the only groups who thoroughly seek to disenfranchise voters are members of the Democratic Party. Obama did it when he first ran for his state senate seat in 1995; and, he and Senate Majority Hack Reid are doing it now by not having a floor vote of the FEC nominees from last year.

By the way, I love how the number from that survey that was linked to was inflated. Here's what that survey actually said:

A national survey finds that approximately 11 million native-born citizens currently lack the required documents.

How did 11 million become 10-30 million? And by the way, that survey had to do with people not able to get passports or birth certificates, not part of the law passed by Indiana. How do you, Brad, account for the discrepancies that I pointed out? Or are you not willing to answer the question?

Does anyone remember this story? The woman in the article, Faye Buis-Ewing, was used by the Indiana League of Women Voters, a plaintiff in the case, to show the "travails" the 72-year old had to go through to vote in Indiana. Except, she's a resident of Florida, has a Florida driver's license, and is registered to vote in Florida and Indiana. Sorry, that's why laws like the one in Indiana are passed, to stop idiocy like this. I realize that Democrats can only win elections if these kinds of things are allowed, but that's just too bad.

First the good news,, My wifes father, a die hard central IL resident and longtime Rush L fan has recently recanted his viewer ship. Even this Die hard repub "watch out the libs are taking over our country" now thinks that Rush is full of it (and this man even stood by Rush after his drug problems went public)

I'm really not surprised that there is all of this anger toward chicago and the way it votes. After all, all of IL mostly goes repub except for chicago. I know it really rattles you few people who like to drive around with shotguns and a rebel flags in the back of your pick up but really Chicago votes that way because they are more progressive then the rest of the state. They accept gays and blacks. I know that is a hard notion for most of IL where you can on average drive 30 min to get to a KKK meeting (not making this up) but give up on the cemetery voting BS already.

The only stupid people are the ones that believe that a law preventing id less people from voting is gonna save the system. Just by talking about the ID issue you are admitting that there are problems with the system. Well duh, but the real problem of fraud isn't ID's its the machines.

And really you're gonna defend a fat man that probably can't even find his own......., well I'll just leave it at that.

Steve drops his little turds on the Civil Rights Movement and all those people who have fought and died against repression, oppression and suppression of legitimate voters to exercise their right to vote:

By the way, the only groups who thoroughly seek to disenfranchise voters are members of the Democratic Party.

Steve may be referring to the racist Southern Democrats who fled to the Republican Party civil rights legislation was finally secured. Or maybe he means the consent decree that was signed in 1981, promising not to cage minorities from voter lists after they were caught. Oh wait, that was the Republicans. Maybe he believes MLK Jr. and those three civil rights workers in Mississippi (to name a very few) would agree with him --- tsk, too bad they can't because they were murdered for fighting against similar suppression tactics...

Find some actual, documented evidence from a legitimate, peer reviewed academic source (Milyo doesn't count, btw) and then please pass it on to the dozens of non-partisan research organizations whose studies show otherwise, because they are so obviously in need of your mad research skilz!

Your position on the FEC situation is very telling. Apparently you support photo ID laws that prevent Native American Indians on remote reservations from using their tribal ID's, or disabled voters who also don't have DLs because they don't drive, and prevent active military service-members from using their military photo ID? Because all of those are not acceptable under the Indiana law. Have you volunteered yet to drive people back and forth (and help pay the fees) for the required documents to get their state-issued photo IDs, even if they've been voting in the same precinct for decades?

Only Republicans believe it necessary to disenfranchise one group of people in order to prevent the mythical disenfranchisement of another group of people in a situation they can't even prove exists. Great logic, that.

What it does mean for Illinois is that if a law like the one in Indiana were passed, it would deny the use of the Democratic Machine to include votes by people who are passing themselves off as someone they are not, perhaps a resident of Mount Carmel Cemetery

Okay. I'll bite. a) Where's your evidence for that? and b) How would it stop that from happening at the polling place on Election Day (as the IN law is designed to do)?

It also means that if a similar law were passed in Illinois, it already has passed constitutional muster against ridiculous challenges like the one in Indiana.

Right. But the question was how it would stop the "Democratic Machine" from doing what you claimed they were doing. You've been unable to answer that so far, other than to offer some vague reference to "residents of any of the other cemeteries within Chicago, core constituencies of the Chicago Democratic Machine".

Where is your evidence for that? And how would the IN law (if used in IL) deter the behavior you accuse Chicago Dems of doing?

By the way, the only groups who thoroughly seek to disenfranchise voters are members of the Democratic Party.

I'll look forward to your evidence, even more than your lazy and inaccurate slurs. For example, this one...

Obama...and Senate Majority Hack Reid are doing it now by not having a floor vote of the FEC nominees from last year.

As you likely know (or if you don't, it's because you'rr chump enough to believe what your disinfo masters have told you), neither Reid nor Obama are blocking "a floor vote of the FEC nominees from last year".

Obama (and Feingold) have put a block on the worst of the vote suppressors, von Spakovsky, as is their right, and as has been done many times by Senators from both parties. Yet the Republican leadership's Mitch McConnell is refusing to allow a vote on the 3 nominees for whom nobody is opposed. Such a vote would make the FEC operable again immediately, but the Republicans won't allow it.

Further, despite von Spakovsky having been turned down TWICE by the Senate (once when R's where in charge, and now when D's are in charge) he refuses to remove his name from consideration and the WH refuses to withdraw the nominee and replace him with another Republican who would not be blocked.

If you are silly enough to blame the Dems for the Republican obstructionism here, you are either being disingenuous or are ill-informed. I'll not be presumptuous enough to guess which of those two failings you suffer from.

How did 11 million become 10-30 million? And by the way, that survey had to do with people not able to get passports or birth certificates, not part of the law passed by Indiana. How do you, Brad, account for the discrepancies that I pointed out? Or are you not willing to answer the question?

I'm willing to answer any question, silly boy. You're the one who, even after having been given several opportunities now, seems to have a difficult time answering direct questions.

As to the above, while I don't recall which of the surveys I specifically linked to (there are dozens of them cited, for example, in the SCOTUS decisions, which I'm sure you failed to read), here's another for ya. From Brennan Center [PDF]:

"As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready
access to citizenship documents."

"As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do
not have government-issued photo identification."

The MOE on both of those numbers, which were compared with both Census 2000 and US DOT numbers, was +- 2%. You can do the math. Or you can ask me to go do more of your research for you.

In either case, yeah, if 11 million don't even have birth cert or passport, do you think the number who don't have state-issued photo ID (remember, the Republican law in IN denies use of even military ID!) would be any higher than that, genius? Go read some science, instead of playing your silly partisan games.

FWIW, I've been quite tough on the shitty job that Cook County Dems are doing running their elections. Unlike yourself, I'm not a partisan operative. Just in case you haven't woken up to that yet.

I know that is a hard notion for most of IL where you can on average drive 30 min to get to a KKK meeting (not making this up) but give up on the cemetery voting BS already.

Too funny. Have you taken your comedy act on the road?

Just by talking about the ID issue you are admitting that there are problems with the system.

Actually, it was Mr. Friedman who brought this up. It's his rant post.

DES said:

Steve may be referring to the racist Southern Democrats who fled to the Republican Party civil rights legislation was finally secured.

Actually, no. I was referring to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Gore, the DNC, the Daley Democrat Machine, and anybody else who promotes the idea that the election of a Republican is a criminal act. What's funny is that four of Daley's people have had corruption convictions upheld, one of Blagojevich's cronies just pled guilty to lying to the FBI, and Blago's and Obama's buddy Rezko is about to be sent up the river. And then there's John Murtha, William Jefferson, Eliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick, Larry Langford, James L. Walls...shall I go on?

Believe me, if someone took the time to investigate, there would be plenty of evidence. But the only ones who would seem to take this on would be the Cook County government. Oh, but they are run by Dems too, attached to...the Daley machine. Go figure. About the only other group that could tackle this is the DoJ, and they haven't seen fit to do anything, regardless of the party affiliation of the President. Besides, they are hip deep in corruption investigations and trials. It's good that your tough on the Cook County government; it doesn't seem to be helping, nor will it any time soon.

Yet the Republican leadership's Mitch McConnell is refusing to allow a vote on the 3 nominees for whom nobody is opposed. Such a vote would make the FEC operable again immediately, but the Republicans won't allow it.

Back on that again? Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, can call for the votes on all four nominees at any time, regardless of what McConnell says or does. There hasn't even been a cloture vote called to end debate on the nominations, so how is this McConnell's deal? With Reid not even calling for a cloture vote, he's the one hanging these nominations up, nobody else.

And some old folks show up at beer festivals without a picture ID! Such brazen attitudes!
Maybe we should modernize voting by requiring it all to be online, and those without computers or the 'proper' software can just go weep crocodile tears elsewhere.
Oh, and outlaw those nasty exit polls, too.

I wish I would have kept notes on this voter fraud thing because I remember two elections back when a few were making issues of the problem. What interested me was a part of the story that claimed how most States didn't have the the equipment or man power to design and print a photo ID card that would meet Federal Approval. I thought how stupid this was because I knew any DMV can do this. So I did some hyper clicking and ended up on a web site approved by Homeland Security that was offering this service for 56 bucks per card. I guess I saw first hand someone making a business of the problem. Maybe this is still coming.

After his absurd statement insulting every civil rights and voting rights activist who has ever lived, Steve from ILL quickly backtracks to say:

Actually, no. I was referring to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Gore, the DNC, the Daley Democrat Machine, and anybody else who promotes the idea that the election of a Republican is a criminal act.

Wow, that's quite an assertion there, Steve-o. Have you any facts that even remotely resemble these fever dreams from your active imagination?

Naturally we would all love to see when any of those people have ever "promote(d) the idea that the election of a Republican is a criminal act", either literally or figuratively...but it has to be based in reality (sorry).

Believe me, if someone took the time to investigate, there would be plenty of evidence.

Sorry, kiddo, that lame-ass crap doesn't fly here. You gotta bring more to the table if you want to be taken seriously against the many academic researchers who HAVE taken the time to investigate, whose mountain of research contradicts your baseless, unsourced, unevidenced, prejudiced regurgitation of Republican talking points.

Here's an idea --- why don't YOU take the time to investigate and please share your research with the many respected research organizations who somehow missed that evidence you are so certain exists.

(Maybe it's just hiding in the same place as Iraq's WMD.)

Sorry, don't have any more time to play today, Steve-o, but good luck with your research.

Please try to get on NPR's Diane Rehm show tomorrow morning (1-800-433-8850 or drshow@wamu.org) at 10:00am EDT. She's doing an hour on the VoterID decision and will have the notorious John Fund on, as well as Doug Chapin and Wendy Weiser. I called the station as soon as I heard the announcement, especially since NPR's Nina Totenberg this morning had Thor Hearne as a source, and I was directed to leave a message on the voice mail of the producer of the segment.

Diane's ripe for a deeper understanding. This week she did a show on the documentary "Rape in the Congo", the failure of the FDA to properly inform us of the dangers of plastic bottles, veterans committing suicide, and a sympathetic hour with Jimmy Carter.

Perhaps if you call the main number of WAMU: 201-855-1200 BEFORE the show, you can make your point to be heard.

I was referring to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Gore, the DNC, the Daley Democrat Machine, and anybody else who promotes the idea that the election of a Republican is a criminal act.

And where is you evidence showing that any of the folks you've attempted to smear above have done that? Short of such evidence, it would seem like you are posting disinformation here, which is decidedly against the written rules for commenting.

Either share the evidence for that claim, or knock it off. You may consider this a warning (see the rules for details) in lieu of evidence to support your claim.

As to my request above that you offer evidence to support your claim that the Chicago "Democratic Machine" were "includ[ing] votes by people who are passing themselves off as someone they are not, perhaps a resident of Mount Carmel Cemetery," you replied:

Believe me, if someone took the time to investigate, there would be plenty of evidence.

So in other words, you're making it up, and have no such evidence. As I figured.

As to your whine that it's impossible to find such evidence of criminality (even if that doesn't keep you from alleging it) because Cook County is run by Dems, color me unimpressed.

The DoJ is run by the most partisan, politicized Republicans ever, yet The BRAD BLOG has been able to offer evidence of criminality after criminality of the criminals currently serving in this administration.

As of this moment, you're smelling like a fairly pathetic, fraudulent, partisan hack/phony.

Care to keep digging? Apparently so. You then went on to say:

Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, can call for the votes on all four nominees at any time, regardless of what McConnell says or does.

Are you unfamiliar with Senate Rules, dear? Again, check your facts and get back to me. And don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

bob clark, morning DJ for 770KKOB in NM, the biggest station in the state, who is on just before Limbaugh, will be asking between 9 AM MST and 9:45- does NM need voter ID too? this is a monster station in these parts, makes it to WY at night.

I really don't understand the big deal about an I.D. My question is why don't people have at least a state I.D. card? I live in Louisiana and have voted for over 25 years and always had to show a picture I.D.. It's not a big deal here.
Even people on SSI/medicare have a state I.D.. I go to my polling place and nothing but elderly people most have state I.D. cards because most are too old to drive. Is the $20.00 the issue. How do people cash checks? How do these people open bank accounts without an I.D.? What am I missing? Are these people unable to get access to the DMV?

#36, My Grandmother never in her life had to show an ID to vote in her precinct, she showed her phone bill.
Under the new Indiana law, she would have been disenfranchised on voting day because she never had a birth certificate even tho born in the US.

Usually I just whip out my ID without thinking that there are some who don't have the same luxury. ID was not mandatory for voting, just more convenient.
I could have used a phone bill too for ID if I had wanted to.